Florida v. Riley

Incident Summary & Facts

Riley lived in a mobile home on five acres of rural property in Pasco County, Florida. A greenhouse stood 10 to 20 feet behind the home. Two of its sides were enclosed. The other two were open, but trees, shrubs and the mobile home blocked the view from surrounding property. The roof was made of corrugated panels, some translucent and some opaque, and two panels, about 10% of the roof area, were missing. A wire fence surrounded the home and greenhouse, and the property was posted “DO NOT ENTER.”

Acting on an anonymous tip that marijuana was being grown there, an investigating officer found he could not see into the greenhouse from the road. He then circled twice over the property in a helicopter at 400 feet. With his naked eye, he saw through the roof openings and open sides what he believed was marijuana. A warrant obtained on that basis led to a search that found marijuana in the greenhouse, and Riley was charged with possession under Florida law. This case did not involve a use-of-force encounter. It concerns aerial surveillance under the Fourth Amendment.

Procedural posture: The trial court granted Riley’s motion to suppress. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed but certified the question. The Florida Supreme Court held that the helicopter observation was a “search” requiring a warrant and reinstated the suppression order. The U.S. Supreme Court granted the State’s petition for certiorari.

Core Legal Issue

Is naked-eye police observation of the interior of a partially covered greenhouse within a home’s curtilage, made from a helicopter 400 feet above it, a “search” requiring a warrant under the Fourth Amendment?

The Holding

No. The Court reversed the Florida Supreme Court and held that the helicopter observation did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The judgment rested on a four-Justice plurality opinion by Justice White and Justice O’Connor’s concurrence in the judgment.

The Court’s Analysis:

• Ciraolo controls (plurality): Under California v. Ciraolo, “[w]hat a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection,” and police may see what is visible “from a public vantage point where [they have] a right to be.”
• Lawful vantage point: Helicopters are not bound by the minimum altitudes for fixed-wing aircraft. “Any member of the public could legally have been flying over Riley’s property in a helicopter at the altitude of 400 feet and could have observed Riley’s greenhouse. The police officer did no more.” The plurality said it “would have a different case” if the flight had violated law or regulation.
• Limits noted by the plurality: The record showed no interference with Riley’s use of the curtilage, no “intimate details” observed, and “no undue noise, and no wind, dust, or threat of injury.”
• Concurrence (O’Connor, J.): FAA compliance is not the test. The question is whether the public travels at that altitude “with sufficient regularity” that the expectation of privacy is unreasonable. The defendant bears the burden on that question, and Riley offered no evidence. Surveillance at lower altitudes may violate reasonable expectations of privacy.
• Dissents: Justice Brennan (joined by Justices Marshall and Stevens) argued that the plurality let flight-safety regulations define the Fourth Amendment and that low-level helicopter flights by the public are rare. Justice Blackmun would have placed the burden on the prosecution for flights below 1,000 feet and remanded.